Top 10 Things The Trial of the Chicago 7 Got Factually Right and Wrong
#10: Hoffman & Rubin Wore Judicial Robes
Top 10 Best Philip Seymour Hoffman Performances
Right The film portrays Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin as a couple of jokers who treat the trial almost like performance art. They see it as an opportunity to attract the media and more young people to the Yippie movement, undermining the no-nonsense judge around every turn. One such example is when they appear in court wearing judicial robes, much to Judge Hoffman’s annoyance. In real life, David and Rubin did show up in robes one day, although they weren’t wearing police uniforms underneath as depicted in the film. Upon taking the robes off, they used them to wipe their feet. This actually sounds like something that Sacha Baron Cohen might do if he were on trial, making his casting as Abbie all the more brilliant.
#9: FBI Agent Daphne O’Connor
Top 10 Things Being the Ricardos Got Factually Right & Wrong
Wrong Played by Caitlin FitzGerald, Daphne O’Connor is an undercover FBI agent who has a sort-of romance with Jerry Rubin after buying him a drink at a bar. Despite coming to empathize with Rubin’s cause, O’Connor takes the stand and breaks his heart. Much like Rooney Mara’s character in “The Social Network,” Daphne O’Connor is purely a creation of Aaron Sorkin. Granted, there were a few undercover agents who got close to the Chicago 7. Irwin Bock and William Frappolly infiltrated the Vets for Peace and the Students for a Democratic Society. Rubin was personally duped by Robert Pierson, a Chicago police officer who went undercover as his bodyguard. Yet, there are no reports indicating that Rubin had a 93-hour fling with an FBI agent.
#8: Judge Julius Hoffman’s Incompetence
Right It’s not uncommon for biopics to vilify authority figures, but Judge Julius Hoffman was every bit as antagonistic as Frank Langella’s portrayal. Described as “impetuous and rude” in Joseph Goulden’s 1974 book, “The Benchwarmers,” the 74-year-old Judge Hoffman prevented the jury from examining certain evidence that would’ve benefited the Chicago 7. As in the film, the families of two young jurors received threatening letters allegedly from the Black Panthers, which the defence claimed were forgeries. Judge Hoffman showed them the letters, leading to one leaving the jury. According to Attorney Gerald Lefcourt, Judge Hoffman was “pro government on a mission,” viewing the defense team as the “enemy from day one.” As such, the judge issued 175 counts of contempt of court throughout the trial.
#7: Richard Schultz Was Sympathetic to the Defendants
Top 10 Things Richard Jewell Got Factually Right and Wrong
Wrong Although he was a junior prosecutor, the film suggests that Richard Schultz sympathized with the Chicago 7. While Schultz does his job, he doesn’t get much joy from it. Meanwhile, lead prosecutor Tom Foran shows little empathy for the defendants. It’s Schutz who pleads with Judge Hoffman to have mercy on Bobby Seale, leading to his mistrial. In reality, this was the U.S. Attorney’s office’s doing. Several people have argued that Schutz was far more hotheaded than seen in the movie, earning a reputation as “the government’s pit bull.” Defendant David Dellinger went as far as to call Schultz “a snake” and “a Nazi.” Some would also debate that Foran was the more restrained of the two, although he did make plenty of controversial comments.
#6: David Dellinger Punched a Marshall
Top 10 Best David Fincher Movies
Wrong David Dellinger is depicted as a radical pacifist who wanted to keep the protests peaceful. Dellinger is finally pushed to his limits when Judge Hoffman throws out key testimony, calling him a “thug.” This culminates in Dellinger punching a marshall and apologizing before being dragged out. Although it’s a powerful moment, Dellinger never used physical violence in court. This isn’t to say Dellinger never threw a punch in his life. He showed great remorse for knocking out another man in college, which may’ve inspired this scene. Throughout the trial, however, Dellinger stuck by his pacifist worldview. That said, he was escorted out at one point for interrupting a witness. It was at this point that Dellinger made his “snake” and “Nazi” comments about Schultz.
#5: The Jury Didn’t Hear Ramsey Clark’s Testimony
Top 10 Things Elizabeth (1998) Got Factually Right and Wrong
Right In the film, the case is seemingly blown wide open when Attorney General Ramsey Clark takes the stand. He recounts telling the president over the phone that the Chicago P.D. likely started the riots. The jury isn’t present to hear this bombshell, however, and Judge Hoffman decrees that his testimony won’t be shared. Judge Hoffman did in fact bar Clark as a defense witness, ruling that he made “no relevant or material contribution” to the case. It’s debatable if Clark’s testimony truly would’ve been the smoking gun that the film leads us to believe. Nevertheless, defense attorney William Kunstler called Judge Hoffman’s ruling “absolutely unheard of in the history of the United States,” adding that it “sets a precedent that is horrendous to contemplate.”
#4: Jerry Rubin’s Arrest
Wrong In one of the movie’s most intense moments, the police and protesters clash atop a hill, although this played out differently in reality. A fleet of officers wasn’t waiting for the protesters when they arrived at the General John Logan Memorial. On the contrary, a significant number of cops intervened after the crowd started taking the hill. The scene shows Rubin rescuing a female protester carrying an American flag as three men force themselves on her. While there doesn’t appear to be any account of this happening, Robert Pierson claims that a conflict did erupt over a communist flag. Even so, Rubin wasn’t arrested during the riot as the film depicts, but at a later time when he was on the street with a buddy.
#3: “Flow All Over the City” Speech
Right We get to the root of the riots as Rennie Davis is beaten by the police at Grant Park, motivating Tom Hayden to deliver his “blood flowing all over the city” speech. Although this wasn’t the first time Hayden got fired up, it’s widely believed that Davis’ beating ignited his speech and the ensuing chaos. Through his research, Aaron Sorkin found that Hayden meant to say “our blood.” In an interview with GQ, Sorkin said: “I think that there’s a part of Tom that feels like he inadvertently caused a tremendous amount of violence and all the blood that was spilled that night. Not that Tom, nor anyone else, thinks that the riot was Tom’s fault. The police could’ve easily not started smacking people in the head with baseball bats.”
#2: Bobby Seale’s Mistreatment & Fred Hampton’s Death
Right The Chicago 7 were truly the Chicago 8. The eighth person in question was Black Panther Party co-founder Bobby Seale, who wasn’t permitted to postpone his trial when his lawyer needed gallbladder surgery. Unable to defend himself, Seale was left without counsel. Most notably, Seale really was restrained and gagged after an outburst. In the film, Seale’s speech stems from Fred Hampton’s shooting during a raid. Although this actually happened after Seale was bound in court, it is generally believed that Hampton’s death was an assassination carried out by the FBI. Seale was actually restrained for several days as opposed to a few minutes. Judge Hoffman would declare a mistrial, separating Seale from the other seven. Before we unveil our top pick, here are a few honorable mentions. Abbie Hoffman Discussed the Trial in Public, Right Check Out His Album “Wake Up, America!” If You Want To Hear More Jerry Rubin Taught Protesters to Make Molotov Cocktails, Wrong John Froines & Lee Weiner Were Actually Accused of This March to Bail Out Tom Hayden, Right Protesters & Police Did Confront Each Other at the Station
#1: Reading the Names
Right & Wrong The film ends on a high note as Tom Hayden uses his closing statement to read off the names of the 4,752 U.S. troops who died in Vietnam since the trial started. It’s a triumphant moment, but did it really happen? Yes and no. While names of fallen soldiers were read aloud in court, it wasn’t at the end of the trial and it wasn’t Hayden who led this act. It actually happened on October 15, 1969, almost four months before sentencing, and David Dellinger read the names. Judge Hoffman initially wasn’t present as the names were being read. When he entered the courtroom, Judge Hoffman made Dellinger stop and an argument ensued. While altered, the ending we get is classic Aaron Sorkin.
